The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 21, 2026) indicated that it may ask Sonam Raghuvanshi, accused of murdering her newlywed husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya, to surrender and face trial unless she chooses to do so voluntarily while key prosecution witnesses are examined.

A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale, hearing the Meghalaya government’s appeal against the grant of bail to Ms. Raghuvanshi, asked her counsel to seek instructions on whether she was willing to surrender voluntarily.

“Either we will consider and pass an order on merits, or we will pass an order making you surrender. We are putting it to you because we don’t want to catch you by surprise, and at the same time you should also understand our mind. You just get instructions and come back to us,” Justice Sundresh orally remarked.

The Bench, however, indicated that voluntary surrender might be the preferable course of action. “I think the second option is better for you. If you want to argue further, we will hear you and then decide one way or the other,” the judges told her counsel.

The top court was hearing the Meghalaya government’s appeal against a June 29 order of the Meghalaya High Court upholding a Shillong trial court’s decision granting bail to Ms. Raghuvanshi on the ground that the police had failed to effectively communicate the grounds of her arrest.

Appearing for the Meghalaya government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the constitutional requirement of furnishing the written grounds of arrest had been substantially complied with. According to him, the only defect was a typographical error in the arrest memo, which inadvertently referred to Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) instead of Section 103, the provision dealing with murder.

“This is only a typographical error, and a typographical error cannot vitiate the entire proceedings,” Mr. Mehta submitted.

No ‘surprise’ arrest

He further argued that Ms. Raghuvanshi had voluntarily surrendered on June 9, 2025, after remaining absconding from May 23, 2025, which indicated that she was fully aware of the nature of the allegations against her. It was, therefore, not a case in which her personal liberty had been curtailed through a “surprise” arrest, he contended.

“If you go and surprise someone by arresting him, then you have to inform him about the grounds of arrest. Suppose someone is caught red-handed while committing a cognisable offence, he cannot say that he was not informed about the grounds of arrest... She knew she was absconding in a murder case, and when she surrendered, she was aware of the offence for which she was being arrested,” Mr. Mehta said.

The Solicitor General also pointed out that Ms. Raghuvanshi had signed the arrest memo containing the incorrect penal provision without disputing its contents. He questioned why the alleged procedural defect had not been raised at the earliest opportunity.

“She does not dispute the contents of the arrest memo when she signs it. Every typographical or grammatical error cannot be construed as rendering the arrest or the subsequent proceedings invalid... At what stage do you raise such a ground? You raise it at the first available opportunity,” Mr. Mehta submitted.

Procedural lapse not raised earlier

Disputing the submission, Ms. Raghuvanshi’s counsel pointed out that she had not formally surrendered but was instead arrested. He also argued that the case had received undue media attention and rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.

However, the Bench made it clear that it was not inclined to examine the prosecution’s allegations in detail at this stage. It also questioned why the alleged procedural lapse had not been raised earlier, particularly when Ms. Raghuvanshi’s three previous bail applications had been rejected by the trial court on the ground that she was a flight risk and likely to tamper with evidence in view of her past conduct.

“Regarding the grounds of arrest, did you raise it at the earliest point of time? How does it matter at this stage of the case that Section 403 was mentioned instead of Section 103?” Justice Sundresh asked.

The Bench also observed that if Ms. Raghuvanshi surrendered, it would consider her bail plea after the trial court records the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

Her counsel sought time to obtain instructions from his client and said he would apprise the court of her decision on the next date of hearing, July 28.

Earlier, a Bench headed by Justice Manoj Misra had indicated that the Meghalaya government’s appeal against the grant of bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi may have to be referred to a larger Bench in view of conflicting decisions of coordinate Benches on whether the grounds of arrest must necessarily be furnished to an accused in writing.

“Basically, the issue is whether written grounds of arrest are mandatory or not... We will decide whether the matter requires to be referred to a larger Bench. There is a conflict arising from different coordinate Bench judgments,” the Bench had said.

Rejecting the prosecution’s contention that the discrepancy was merely an innocuous clerical or typographical error, the Meghalaya High Court had held that the document purportedly communicating the grounds of arrest had been prepared “without any application of mind” and contained allegations bearing no connection to the case.

“If this is the manner in which the intimation of the grounds of arrest is made, the same reflects a total non-application of judicious mind on the part of the arresting agency,” Justice W. Diengdoh had observed, adding that such glaring errors struck at the very foundation of the arrest process and justified the grant of bail.

The case relates to the murder of Indore businessman Raja Raghuvanshi, who had travelled to Meghalaya with his wife, Sonam, for their honeymoon in May 2025. The couple went missing on May 23 while vacationing in the Sohra region of the State. Raja Raghuvanshi’s body was recovered from a deep gorge on June 2.

According to the prosecution, Sonam conspired with hired assailants to murder her husband pursuant to a conspiracy allegedly hatched with her purported lover, Raj Kushwaha, with the objective of securing financial gain.